Cocaine Killed Ike Turner, Coroner Says

By CHELSEA J. CARTER, AP

SAN DIEGO (Jan. 16) - Rock n' roll pioneer Ike Turner's death last month at age 76 was caused by a cocaine overdose, the San Diego County Medical Examiner's office said Wednesday.

"We are listing that he abused cocaine, and that's what resulted in the cocaine toxicity," said Paul Parker, chief investigator at the medical examiner's office.

The findings were first reported by the North County Times.

The medical examiner's office also listed hypertensive cardiovascular disease and pulmonary emphysema as "significant and contributing factors" to Turner's death, Parker said.

Turner, whose musical accomplishments were overshadowed by his image as the man who brutally abused former wife Tina Turner, died Dec. 12 after years of drug abuse. He was jailed in 1989 and served 17 months.

Turner once told The Associated Press he originally began using drugs to stay awake and handle the rigors of nonstop touring during his glory years.

"My experience, man, with drugs - I can't say that I'm proud that I did drugs, but I'm glad I'm still alive to convey how I came through," he said. "I'm a good example that you can go to the bottom. ... I used to pray, `God, if you let me get three days clean, I will never look back.' But I never did get to three days. You know why? Because I would lie to myself. And then only when I went to jail, man, did I get those three days. And man, I haven't looked back since then."

But while he would readily admit to drug abuse, Turner always denied abusing his ex-wife. In her 1987 autobiography, "I, Tina," Tina Turner told of a brutal pattern of abuse.

After years out of the spotlight his career finally began to revive in 2001 when he released the album "Here and Now." The recording won rave reviews and a Grammy nomination and finally helped shift some of the public's attention away from his troubled past and onto his musical legacy.

Turner spent his later years making more music and touring, even while he battled emphysema.

Sad. You'd think that a guy nearing 80 would lay off the cokestraw by then, but apparently not.

It's sad that for all his accomplishments, after all, he recorded the first official rock and roll song in the early 50's, he is ultimately remembered for his sordid personal life. Other rock and rollers who have done twice as bad are remembered for their music. I'm not sure if Keith Richards will be remembered primarily for his drug indulgence (and worse) as much as his playing.

Even though I hate Ike as a person I even would not wish this on him. It was sad that he never got help. :(

Horrible.

I am not surprised. Live by the coke, die by the coke.

I am not surprised. Live by the coke, die by the coke.Reminds me of a joke involving Richard Pryor and Michael Jackson. ;)

LOL@Ike Turner couldn't put the crackpipe down hahahahahahahahahahaha. I don't have any sympathy for his death. He was a mean abusive person towards Tina and he's a punk as* b*tch in my opinion. I don't like men who hit women even though some women can drive a man to the point where you wanna hit them but men that are abusive towards their women need to learn to walk away from their woman when they get into a argument with them because violence never solves anything.

What goes around comes around.

Ike deserves credit for introducing Tina to the music world, but that's about it. He was an abusive a**hole from what I read. Even Tina had nothing to say about him when he died. That's class.

The article that appeared in my newspaper actually had statements by Ike's daughter saying she was shocked that he died from an overdose of cocaine because he was so weak and tired and obviously in his last days when he could no longer breathe on his own. He had an oxygen tank hooked up to him. I laugh at her comments simply because a man his age, with his deteriorating health and so forth is not going to react to cocaine like he used to. He was slowly dying and you add cocaine to that mix, you are asking to die sooner. Of course it was going to be an overdose of cocaine, no matter how little he did, because his body was not tolerant of that sh*t anymore. His immune system is down, everything is shutting down, what ever amount of cocaine he did was enough to kill him. Stupid!

Wow, I'm Shocked.. Shocked I tell you.:rolleyes: Just because someone is talented in something says nothing about the kind of person he is in real life. I mean look at John Lennon. Sure, he was great in 'The Beatles', but, solo, he treated his first wife and kid like garbage, and the worst, inflicted the 'singing' of Yoko Ono on the world. :lol:

I'm surprised Ike was still doing coke at 76. Oh well, if Keith Richards snorted his dad's ashes.....

While Ike is legendary and did discovered Tina Turner as well as others after her, I bet he was thinking this over at 76. I can picture it:

Ike, in his final days, probably said, "Everything I did was just ****. I am scum, hated, despised, old, tired, and just want to die now. Who would they remember? Ike the entertainer? Or Ike the abuser? Either way, I am garbage to the world. Time to end my life while I still can."

In my analysis, I believe Ike was just showing age and becoming incredibly tired. He didn't want to work. He just wanted to end his life now. He didn't want to continue living. He knew what he did was wrong, but he did it just to end his misery because that was his life from the 60-00s when the drugs became his addiction. Ike might be legendary, but he had flaws and most of those flaws were not good for his character at all.

Wow, I'm Shocked.. Shocked I tell you.:rolleyes: Just because someone is talented in something says nothing about the kind of person he is in real life. I mean look at John Lennon. Sure, he was great in 'The Beatles', but, solo, he treated his first wife and kid like garbage, and the worst, inflicted the 'singing' of Yoko Ono on the world. :lol:

Of the two, I don't know which one is worse.:confused: :eek:

Wow, I'm Shocked.. Shocked I tell you.:rolleyes: Just because someone is talented in something says nothing about the kind of person he is in real life. I mean look at John Lennon. Sure, he was great in 'The Beatles', but, solo, he treated his first wife and kid like garbage, and the worst, inflicted the 'singing' of Yoko Ono on the world. :lol:
lol. I do think people are a little too harsh on Yoko tho. Her early recordings are garbage and tedious (I don't know anyone sane who can listen to her "Plastic Ono Band" album without wanting to go insane), but once she started getting slightly more conventional with her music, I think she became great. That voice is definately a hurdle people have to overcome in order to enjoy her music, but I think once you can take her "singing", there's a lot of good music there. Season Of Glass for example is a fantastic album and the emotion on that album is as raw as it gets (it was the album she recorded right after Lennon's assassination)

I can't imagine comparing John Lennon to Ike Turner, pleeeeeeze, gimme a friggin break here. :crazy:

John, unlike Ike Turner, acknowledged what he did to his wife and Julian. His wife talked beautifully abt John after his murder. There is one documentary that I can think of where she speaks abt John so eloquently. Julian was also in this documentary and he too spoke of his father and the loss of him. When a man (or woman) has hurt those in his family and has the balls to admit their faults and asks for forgiveness, that is a done issue. John adored and cherished his life with Yoko and their son Sean. He must have realized how short life is and he took advantage of that life and spent as much time as he could with Yoko and Sean. Glad to know he did do that since his life was brutally cut short.

Ike Turner on the other hand was a no good husband and father to his family. To his last dying day he never admitted the trauma and all the abuse he inflicted upon Tina. The mere fact he still did cocaine up until he died proves he lost his mind to that addiction and would never know what it would have been like to be clean and sober and to face those he hurt.

I've long felt that John Lennon was a hypocrite. He preached peace and love, while treating his first wife, Cynthia, like crap. He cheated on her left and right, finally dumping her for Yoko, giving her a dirt cheap divorce settlement in the process, telling her that she wasn't worth more. She was entitled to half of his money too. John then barely saw their son. I've seen Julian in interviews, and I've heard him speak about how felt about being rejected by his famous father, while Sean was treated like a Prince. Julian barely knew his father.

Even in death, John rejected Julian, who was forced to beg Yoko for any inheritance money. I've said it before, John should have had an ironclad will in place to make sure his firstborn was taken care of.

There's a difference between Turner and Lennon, and if Lennon admitted his failings, it still doesn't make it right. Cynthia may have have some kind words to say about John, after his death. Time usually heals all wounds. I do seem to remember a book she wrote about him about three years ago, where she told her story, and it didn't paint the most flattering portrait. John Lennon was no doubt a talented man, but as a person, he gets no respect from me. If Lennon was John Doe, auto mechanic, you just might think he was a jerk. Having talent doesn't give a person a pass for dumping and breaking the hearts of their family.

Sad. You'd think that a guy nearing 80 would lay off the cokestraw by then, but apparently not.

It's sad that for all his accomplishments, after all, he recorded the first official rock and roll song in the early 50's, he is ultimately remembered for his sordid personal life. Other rock and rollers who have done twice as bad are remembered for their music. I'm not sure if Keith Richards will be remembered primarily for his drug indulgence (and worse) as much as his playing.

Well, I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. When I think of Ike Turner I need to remember the expression "that if you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all" because I so don't want to follow it....but I will....in that vein...beastly weather we're having here in New York City!

I've long felt that John Lennon was a hypocrite. He preached peace and love, while treating his first wife, Cynthia, like crap. He cheated on her left and right, finally dumping her for Yoko, giving her a dirt cheap divorce settlement in the process, telling her that she wasn't worth more. She was entitled to half of his money too. John then barely saw their son. I've seen Julian in interviews, and I've heard him speak about how felt about being rejected by his famous father, while Sean was treated like a Prince. Julian barely knew his father.

Even in death, John rejected Julian, who was forced to beg Yoko for any inheritance money. I've said it before, John should have had an ironclad will in place to make sure his firstborn was taken care of.

There's a difference between Turner and Lennon, and if Lennon admitted his failings, it still doesn't make it right. Cynthia may have have some kind words to say about John, after his death. Time usually heals all wounds. I do seem to remember a book she wrote about him about three years ago, where she told her story, and it didn't paint the most flattering portrait. John Lennon was no doubt a talented man, but as a person, he gets no respect from me. If Lennon was John Doe, auto mechanic, you just might think he was a jerk. Having talent doesn't give a person a pass for dumping and breaking the hearts of their family.


I agree Janice. I've never understood the hero worship for Lennon when it's so obvious and well known how horrible he was to Cynthia and Julian. I've never respected the guy, no matter how great his songs were. Those songs didn't stop the tears or comfort his abandoned young son. It will never happen, but if I ever got divorced, it would be impossible for me to turn my back on my little girls, or my ex-wife, if it was my fault. I see members bash away if a star gets drunk at a club, but this poor excuse for a husband and father is idolized. I'm a little more picky when it comes to who gets my respect.

I agree Janice. I've never understood the hero worship for Lennon when it's so obvious and well known how horrible he was to Cynthia and Julian. I've never respected the guy, no matter how great his songs were. Those songs didn't stop the tears or comfort his abandoned young son. It will never happen, but if I ever got divorced, it would be impossible for me to turn my back on my little girls, or my ex-wife, if it was my fault. I see members bash away if a star gets drunk at a club, but this poor excuse for a husband and father is idolized. I'm a little more picky when it comes to who gets my respect.
I think the reason he is so idolized so much is because he was murdered...just like how JFK is now . People forget the reason Kennedy went to Dallas in the first place was because his numbers were down. I like some of Lennon's songs but it's hard to respect someone who would do that to his family.

I think the reason he is so idolized so much is because he was murdered...just like how JFK is now . People forget the reason Kennedy went to Dallas in the first place was because his numbers were down. I like some of Lennon's songs but it's hard to respect someone who would do that to his family.


I agree, any man who can turn his back on a child gets no respect from me.

I've heard that Julian and John were getting closer during his teen years, and then of course John was murdered.

I've heard that Julian and John were getting closer during his teen years, and then of course John was murdered.


If that were true, then why did he leave the bulk of his money to Yoko and Sean?

If that were true, then why did he leave the bulk of his money to Yoko and Sean?
I've never heard of Sean getting more than Julian, of course, I never really read up on it, but I thought he gave everything to Yoko? Which makes sense that his current wife would've gotten the assets and not his ex-wife.

I think a lot of it is because John was so young the first time around. He only married Cynthia because he felt it was the right thing to do when he had a pregnant girlfriend. By the time he was with Yoko, he was older, had seen the world and was ready to give her and Sean the family he wanted, but was too young and immature to have at 22. But that is no excuse for the way Julian was treated.

I see members bash away if a star gets drunk at a club, but this poor excuse for a husband and father is idolized.
well, I am a fan of Lennon/Beatles/Yoko, but don't "idolize" him, but I can see the difference. People like Paris, Britney, Lindsay and the sort represent the vapidness, shallowness and frivolity of being a celebrity in 2008, they're famous for being famous and don't try to pretend to have an ounce of talent. While Lennon was a mess in his personal life (at least in the 60's, he settled down and became better when him and Yoko got married and especially after Sean came along), he tried to say something with his music. He knew the power he had and used it for what he thought was good, as opposed to someone like Paris or Lindsay, who have images as airhead party princesses to uphold and don't want to use their clout to try to say something.

I don't believe Lennon deserves the religious idolatry he's gotten, but I can definately understand why people who think people like Britney and Paris have destroyed the status of what it's meant to be a celebrity think Lennon was one of the most brilliant artists the music world will ever know.

I actually wrote Yoko several months back and heard back from her, it was a treat. I am glad that her work has begun to get reassessed over time because I think there's a talented woman there, but people need to realize that she is a total opposite performer than her husband was. I always enjoy seeing her in interviews as she's gotten older, she's loosened up so much and she's so fun and cute and likable these days when you see her.

John is the best and he knew he had flaws. He did mistakes. He did drugs. He let Yoko Ono sang and broke the Beatles. He had controversy. But he was the most human ever...far better than Ike, for God's sakes. Ike would just destroy his life like a butterfly while John try to appeal and speak out through music. Do we care about his lifestyle? No. Do we care about his personal life with his first marriage? No. Do we even give a damn if he was unfaithful to his first wife? No. He cared for the music world, which is why John was a very smart businessman. He did music for the people in need of music. He opened their hearts because it was music that mattered. I am not putting him on the idol phase. Nope. He did so much for the music world because you cannot deny that for a moment that Lennon wrote from the heart. He loved music and believed it when music spoke to him. That is all I have to say.

^ I agree. Plus, John tried to reconcile himself with Cynthia and Julian, maybe he didn't do the best job at it, but at least he tried. As opposed to Ike who kept on doing the coke when he died and knew he had a soiled reputation that he never tried to redeem. John was no saint but is anybody really?

I can't imagine comparing John Lennon to Ike Turner, pleeeeeeze, gimme a friggin break here. :crazy:

John, unlike Ike Turner, acknowledged what he did to his wife and Julian. His wife talked beautifully abt John after his murder. There is one documentary that I can think of where she speaks abt John so eloquently. Julian was also in this documentary and he too spoke of his father and the loss of him. When a man (or woman) has hurt those in his family and has the balls to admit their faults and asks for forgiveness, that is a done issue. John adored and cherished his life with Yoko and their son Sean. He must have realized how short life is and he took advantage of that life and spent as much time as he could with Yoko and Sean. Glad to know he did do that since his life was brutally cut short.

Ike Turner on the other hand was a no good husband and father to his family. To his last dying day he never admitted the trauma and all the abuse he inflicted upon Tina. The mere fact he still did cocaine up until he died proves he lost his mind to that addiction and would never know what it would have been like to be clean and sober and to face those he hurt.

That was well put, Irene. John made mistakes, but he was only human after all. Also, John and Julian did become quite close in the years prior to John's death.

I've never heard of Sean getting more than Julian, of course, I never really read up on it, but I thought he gave everything to Yoko? Which makes sense that his current wife would've gotten the assets and not his ex-wife.

I think a lot of it is because John was so young the first time around. He only married Cynthia because he felt it was the right thing to do when he had a pregnant girlfriend. By the time he was with Yoko, he was older, had seen the world and was ready to give her and Sean the family he wanted, but was too young and immature to have at 22. But that is no excuse for the way Julian was treated.
It makes zero sense. I heard it when Julian was on Howard Stern, and some written interviews. He was very bitter about it. It doesn't make sense that a man of Lennon's wealth would treat his own son that way. People of wealth usually distribute their money to their spouse, kids and their grandkids. Not their ex-wives, their kids. People like Frank Sinatra who was on at least his fourth marriage, they set up trusts for them. The wife often gets the bulk of the estate, but you don't stiff your own kids. I wasn't a bit surprised though. Why would John treat Julian with love and respect in death, when he didn't in life? I think Yoko had a lot to do with that. I've read that Cynthia could never break through to Yoko, yet Julian saw a lot of his father during the split he had with Yoko. That's very telling right there. It's obvious that Yoko wasn't into the stepmother role. There are some exes who resent their stepchildren because they have a lifelong bond with their parents, and one of them is their spouse. It's also a reminder of their spouses relationship with another partner. Yoko had a child going into her marriage with John, yet I never saw that child, who was raised by her father.

Still, regarding Julian, the blame was on John, and only John. Nobody had a gun to his head. He knew the right thing to do. You would think after losing his own mother (through death), and his father (through abandonment) that he, of all people, would understand the feelings of parental loss.

Getting marrried at 22 may be young, but he wasn't 17. John and Cynthia were together for quite a while before they got married. This was not a roll-in-the-hay-get-preggers-get-married deal. They were in a serious relationship for a few years before they were married. None of that matters anyway. When John dumped and divorced Cynthia, he was 28, old enough to do the right thing, and certainly old enough to not take out his marital issues on his son. A real man does right by his children, regardless of the situation.

That was well put, Irene. John made mistakes, but he was only human after all. Also, John and Julian did become quite close in the years prior to John's death.
Human, that's my point. John Lennon was a deeply-flawed human, not this bigger-than-life God-like person that some make him out to be. Julian's relationship with his father was on the mend towards the end of John's life, but they were hardly quite close. Once you lose all those years, you never get them back. People do reconnect, but John was not there in any way, while Julian was growing up.

It makes zero sense. I heard it when Julian was on Howard Stern, and some written interviews. He was very bitter about it. It doesn't make sense that a man of Lennon's wealth would treat his own son that way. People of wealth usually distribute their money to their spouse, kids and their grandkids. Not their ex-wives, their kids. People like Frank Sinatra who was on at least his fourth marriage, they set up trusts for them. The wife often gets the bulk of the estate, but you don't stiff your own kids. I wasn't a bit surprised though. Why would John treat Julian with love and respect in death, when he didn't in life? I think Yoko had a lot to do with that. I've read that Cynthia could never break through to Yoko, yet Julian saw a lot of his father during the split he had with Yoko. That's very telling right there. It's obvious that Yoko wasn't into the stepmother role. There are some exes who resent their stepchildren because they have a lifelong bond with their parents, and one of them is their spouse. It's also a reminder of their spouses relationship with another partner. Yoko had a child going into her marriage with John, yet I never saw that child, who was raised by her father.

Still, regarding Julian, the blame was on John, and only John. Nobody had a gun to his head. He knew the right thing to do. You would think after losing his own mother (through death), and his father (through abandonment) that he, of all people, would understand the feelings of parental loss.

Getting marrried at 22 may be young, but he wasn't 17. John and Cynthia were together for quite a while before they got married. This was not a roll-in-the-hay-get-preggers-get-married deal. They were in a serious relationship for a few years before they were married. None of that matters anyway. When John dumped and divorced Cynthia, he was 28, old enough to do the right thing, and certainly old enough to not take out his marital issues on his son. A real man does right by his children, regardless of the situation.

Yoko's daughter Kyoko was kidnapped by her ex-husband and didn't re-enter her life until the mid-90's. Even tho I always thought that seemed shady that Kyoko didn't decide to track her mother down until Yoko started getting older (she's 74, not exactly young) so when it's her time to go, she gets a good part of the fortune.

You're right that it was hypocritical on John's part to speak of the abandonment he had with his parents and then end up doing the same with Julian himself.

I do think the biggest issue of all had to do with location. John moved to the US in the early 70's, where he stayed until his death, while Julian lived in England. It's just like in divorce cases, when the dad lives on the other side of town, most kids will see them much more often than if their dad lives 1000 miles away. There had to be a little bit of a relationship between John and Julian, I know that Julian played drums on the "Walls And Bridges" album at age 11. John may have not been the ideal father, but the fact that Julian and John went to a recording studio together proves that they did spend some time together after the divorce.

Yoko's daughter Kyoko was kidnapped by her ex-husband and didn't re-enter her life until the mid-90's. Even tho I always thought that seemed shady that Kyoko didn't decide to track her mother down until Yoko started getting older (she's 74, not exactly young) so when it's her time to go, she gets a good part of the fortune.

You're right that it was hypocritical on John's part to speak of the abandonment he had with his parents and then end up doing the same with Julian himself.

I do think the biggest issue of all had to do with location. John moved to the US in the early 70's, where he stayed until his death, while Julian lived in England. It's just like in divorce cases, when the dad lives on the other side of town, most kids will see them much more often than if their dad lives 1000 miles away. There had to be a little bit of a relationship between John and Julian, I know that Julian played drums on the "Walls And Bridges" album at age 11. John may have not been the ideal father, but the fact that Julian and John went to a recording studio together proves that they did spend some time together after the divorce.
I know that Yoko and her ex had a bitter custody case over the daughter, and he did take off with the girl for a while, but he didn't kidnap her for 40 years. John had a sporadic relationship with Julian, which would explain Julian playing drums. I wonder if that album coincided with John and Yoko's breakup. Both John and Yoko were devoted to Sean. My parents didn't pick and choose which of their children got the best of them.

Location wouldn't play a part in John and Julian's relationship, not with John's kind of money. There are summer vacations, holiday/school breaks where Julian could have spent time with his father. He wasn't welcome. I've heard and read where Julian states this. He's been very vocal about how much his father hurt him. I'm glad he was blessed with a wonderful mother. Cynthia and Julian have always been close, and are close to this day. He scored big on one parent. That's more than some people can say.

yea, you're right there. It's true that when the dad lives in another state/country, the access to their child will be minimal at best, but Lennon had the kind of money that if he wanted to spend the weekend with Julian, it would've not been an issue in the least to buy a plane ticket to go there or bring Julian to NY with him.

He knew the power he had and used it for what he thought was good, as opposed to someone like Paris or Lindsay, who have images as airhead party princesses to uphold and don't want to use their clout to try to say something.

I don't believe Lennon deserves the religious idolatry he's gotten, but I can definately understand why people who think people like Britney and Paris have destroyed the status of what it's meant to be a celebrity think Lennon was one of the most brilliant artists the music world will ever know.

I actually wrote Yoko several months back and heard back from her, it was a treat. I am glad that her work has begun to get reassessed over time because I think there's a talented woman there, but people need to realize that she is a total opposite performer than her husband was. I always enjoy seeing her in interviews as she's gotten older, she's loosened up so much and she's so fun and cute and likable these days when you see her.
It's hard to believe that Yoko is in her 70s now. I don't know a thing about her music, only that her singing has been a running joke for decades now. If that's changing, that's good for her.

Say what you will about Lindsay or Paris. The point Brian made was that the rip-em-to-shreds crowd have a lot to say, but defend a man who was mostly an absentee father. Lindsay and Paris hurt themselves. Britney is hurting her children. I can see that and hope she gets help. My point is that if a person is going to be judgemental, they should at least be fair about it. Some give passes to some, yet slam others for the same or a lesser act. That's hypocritical on its face. Then there's the ones who say they don't care, but post 15 times in one thread, and have their noses in TMZ all night, lol. Not caring is not caring.

Britney, Paris & Co don't set the standard as to what makes a celebrity, and they haven't destroyed the celebrity status. That's just ridiculous. There are other very talented celebrities and artists, who don't get into trouble like the younger crowd does. To hold them up as what a true celebrity is, makes no sense.

**sigh**

Could we like change the subject for now, please? It is getting too depressing. I don't need to hear troubles....everybody has troubles and mistakes. If God made us perfect, it would have been a boring world. Be glad we have flaws. Perfection is not everything. People make stupid mistakes. I know my family did. If you want an Ozzie and Harriet world, fine. People are human beings. They are not robots. They make mistakes just like everyone, so don't point fingers as to who is the bad guy. We are all bad guys. We are a media-driven culture that say this person is so and so because so and so is such a creep. True, we do get in the way of celebrities' lifestyles(I'm at fault here, too), but that is what makes America #1 in everything.

**sigh**

Could we like change the subject for now, please? It is getting too depressing. I don't need to hear troubles....everybody has troubles and mistakes. If God made us perfect, it would have been a boring world. Be glad we have flaws. Perfection is not everything. People make stupid mistakes. I know my family did. If you want an Ozzie and Harriet world, fine. People are human beings. They are not robots. They make mistakes just like everyone, so don't point fingers as to who is the bad guy. We are all bad guys. We are a media-driven culture that say this person is so and so because so and so is such a creep. True, we do get in the way of celebrities' lifestyles(I'm at fault here, too), but that is what makes America #1 in everything.
^ Says the person who bashes everyone, left, and right, and sideways, for good measure, lol. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and guess that you're a John Lennon fan. It's a message board. Seriously, if you can't handle the topic, don't read the thread. I do that with a lot of threads. You'd have TJ out of business in two days with this attitude. Topics don't get changed because a fan doesn't like to see their idol criticized. It simply doesn't work that way. I will give you this, it's off topic, and I've said all I wanted to say about Lennon anyway. The original topic about Ike Turner, is just as depressing.

^ Says the person who bashes everyone, left, and right, and sideways, for good measure, lol. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and guess that you're a John Lennon fan. It's a message board. Seriously, if you can't handle the topic, don't read the thread. I do that with a lot of threads. You'd have TJ out of business in two days with this attitude. Topics don't get changed because a fan doesn't like to see their idol criticized. It simply doesn't work that way. I will give you this, it's off topic, and I've said all I wanted to say about Lennon anyway. The original topic about Ike Turner, is just as depressing.The only reason why John Lennon has been held up as this wonderful human being was after all, he was a Beatle, and that he was "martyred". I think that for a good part of the 70's, he tried to distance himself from the clean-cut pretty boy pop star image that he had during the Beatlemania era with more honest music where he got his frustrations out about his breakup with Paul McCartney, the loss of his mother, and his entire celebrity status. I think he knew he wasn't the most "respectable" person out there, and I'm sure he hated being thought of as such. To live as the former Beatle with this legacy on your head must have done a lot to him.

It is pretty sad that Lennon pretty much disowned his first son whom he could have easily provided for, and was intended to provide for, but didn't. There seems to be this kind of "mythology" going on about the "saintly" lives of such heroes like Lennon and the Beatles and the times they lived in. The 60's were a fun time for many, while it was a harsh time for everyone else. It did not end pretty and fun at all (Altamont).

But this is a thread about Ike Turner, whose reputation has been sealed long before his death. What this thread shares in common with Lennon is that both have had unsavory details of their personal lives broadcast to the public for years. It's that time will never vindicate Turner, but at least Lennon was candid about his failings.

Sorry Irene, but if you are going to bash Paris, Britney and Lindsay as well as Ike Turner, you can also call out the faults of your idols and stop making excuses for John Lennon. The guy was a dirtbag to his son Julian for years. It seems that Julian was raised as a fine man by his mother to take the high road about his father.

Julian lost out on having a "Dad" that can be just as bad as being slapped around by one. There are different kind of abuses, there is the physical kind and the mental kind. Ike was physical and John was mental.

The only reason why John Lennon has been held up as this wonderful human being was after all, he was a Beatle, and that he was "martyred". I think that for a good part of the 70's, he tried to distance himself from the clean-cut pretty boy pop star image that he had during the Beatlemania era with more honest music where he got his frustrations out about his breakup with Paul McCartney, the loss of his mother, and his entire celebrity status. I think he knew he wasn't the most "respectable" person out there, and I'm sure he hated being thought of as such. To live as the former Beatle with this legacy on your head must have done a lot to him.

It is pretty sad that Lennon pretty much disowned his first son whom he could have easily provided for, and was intended to provide for, but didn't. There seems to be this kind of "mythology" going on about the "saintly" lives of such heroes like Lennon and the Beatles and the times they lived in. The 60's were a fun time for many, while it was a harsh time for everyone else. It did not end pretty and fun at all (Altamont).

But this is a thread about Ike Turner, whose reputation has been sealed long before his death. What this thread shares in common with Lennon is that both have had unsavory details of their personal lives broadcast to the public for years. It's that time will never vindicate Turner, but at least Lennon was candid about his failings.


I agree with everything. Lennon isn't beloved because he's a saint, he is beloved because he was a breath of fresh air. He used his status to speak up for what he believed in, made the music he wanted to make, and was always himself, never pretending to be what others would've wanted. Hell, all you need to do is listen to the lyrics of "God". People kept expecting "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and he gave them "I Am The Walrus", you have to respect the fact that he knew his status and actually used it as a platform, instead of being afraid to grow and mature and say something because you're afraid of losing your audience, like a lot of artists do.

I like McCartney too, but I think the vast difference between McCartney and Lennon is that McCartney loved making music for the masses (nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't have the rawness of Lennon's music), Lennon preferred making music that came right from the heart. This is a reason why it's been nearly thirty years since his murder but yet people who were born years after the fact have flocked to his music.

Janice, do you think John Lennon redeemed himself some by admitting toward
the end of his life how he treated Cynthia and Julian?

Sorry Irene, but if you are going to bash Paris, Britney and Lindsay as well as Ike Turner, you can also call out the faults of your idols and stop making excuses for John Lennon.

you cannot even begin to compare the music Paris, Britney and Lindsay make to Lennon's music (Turner was a great musician, I give you that). Britney on her best day (and I'll give her a few catchy songs) is hardly as good as "Some Time In New York City", which is generally considered Lennon's worst album.

Britney, Paris and Lindsay all do wild trainwrecky things so they can stay on the front page of TMZ, they are using their celebrity to further themselves. Lennon used his celebrity to speak up for causes he believed in and purposely tried to distance himself from the moptop lad that rose to fame in 63-64. Have you ever seen Britney or Paris get behind a cause they believe in and use their fame and status to get the message out? The differences between what Lennon did and what those girls are doing today are completely different.

I think if you do enough analysis of "rock legends", you'll see the saints are few and far between. Even if you looked deep enough, there's probably a really bad skeleton in Bono's closet that he's trying to overcompensate with with his humanitarianism and the sort. We're all human, we've all done things we regret.

^ Says the person who bashes everyone, left, and right, and sideways, for good measure, lol. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and guess that you're a John Lennon fan. It's a message board. Seriously, if you can't handle the topic, don't read the thread. I do that with a lot of threads. You'd have TJ out of business in two days with this attitude. Topics don't get changed because a fan doesn't like to see their idol criticized. It simply doesn't work that way. I will give you this, it's off topic, and I've said all I wanted to say about Lennon anyway. The original topic about Ike Turner, is just as depressing.
You are right, the original topic was and is Ike Turner. Someone compared John Lennon to him and I had to step in to make my opinion on that.

I had an ex-husband that many here already know abt. He was not the epitomy of a father or husband. The abuse was horrible. However, he changed his life around, admitted his mistakes and asked for forgiveness.

As I seen Cynthia and Julian talk abt John in that documentary, you can see the sadness in both their eyes. I am sure had that bastard killer not murdered John Lennon, there would have been more days for John and Julian to get even closer. There was not enough time though for John. What time he did spend with Julian towards the end was better than never getting together at all. I think that is what matters the most, the fact they were beginning to heal. That is more than what Ike ever did. He left behind tattered souls, Tina's and his children with her by never admitting his addiction problem, putting a gun to her face, blaming her for her suicide attempt, beating her to a pulp, degrading her and being unfaithful. He continued his ruthless lifestyle til the day he could never do that anymore.

Sorry for the rant.

How did Britney and Paris get mixed into this topic? :lol: I know that I have defended Brit and Paris and when Anna Nicole was getting bashed to pieces, I know that me and Janice were right there holding up her tattered memory. I think for the most part people can see the good and bad in people, no matter what, but Ike is the topic here and how he lived and eventually died seems to be his addiction to cocaine. What a sorry life to have led, to have never known the beautiful life of sobriety. :ohno:

Sorry Irene, but if you are going to bash Paris, Britney and Lindsay as well as Ike Turner, you can also call out the faults of your idols and stop making excuses for John Lennon. The guy was a dirtbag to his son Julian for years. It seems that Julian was raised as a fine man by his mother to take the high road about his father.

Julian lost out on having a "Dad" that can be just as bad as being slapped around by one. There are different kind of abuses, there is the physical kind and the mental kind. Ike was physical and John was mental.
If there was a thread on John Lennon abt how bad a father he was etc. I would post my two cents on it and agreeing with that fact. When words have been said abt my fave two ladies Lucille Ball and Roseanne Barr, I post my thoughts on them, not always favorable. I am not the only one who has bashed Paris or Britney or anyone else in the past, but i can also say I have said positive things abt the ladies. I guess those positive posts of mine got overlooked. I seem to recall all of us having a field day when Brit began to go crazy and got divorced. But as time goes on some of us realized that she has a problem, whatever that is. During the Paris Hilton bashing, I was there too as well as many others. But I defended her too on numerous occasions. Why is it when there is bashing on any level abt a celeb, others seem to point out to others how much they bash so and so, blah blah blah? I don't get that. When Anna Nicole was being bashed, where were all the positive posts for her? Who was defending her? I seem to recall too much "blame game" going on with her threads. Being a hypocrite means talking trash abt celebs but only speaking positive thoughts abt fave celebrities of those who like them. I can honestly say I have said good things and negative things abt all celebs that have had the run around on this board.

This is just stupid and dumb. I guess my time here is up. Bye.

Geez he was still a lowlife at the age of 76.

Ireneparalegal, oh, my God. I didn't know about that. I am sorry you had to endure that pain for sometime, but at least you survived, so that's good, I believe.

You can say what you want about Ike Turner and/or John Lennon, but I don't think anybody would deny their talent and how they changed rock music.

However, how the hell did Paris, Lindsay and Britney ever get into this conversation??:confused: :confused: Combined, they don't have one zillionth the talent that either Lennon or Turner had individually.;)

^ I second that, Doc!!! :clap

To have a coke habit and even live to 80. Sorry, but he was proof that only the good die young imo.

He was a great writer though - I'll hand him that. But man, what a walk-in closet of demons that man had.

To have a coke habit and even live to 80. Sorry, but he was proof that only the good die young imo.

He was a great writer though - I'll hand him that. But man, what a walk-in closet of demons that man had.
As Janice would say, the guy had more baggage than Delta Airlines. ohno:

I agree with everything. Lennon isn't beloved because he's a saint, he is beloved because he was a breath of fresh air. He used his status to speak up for what he believed in, made the music he wanted to make, and was always himself, never pretending to be what others would've wanted. Hell, all you need to do is listen to the lyrics of "God". People kept expecting "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and he gave them "I Am The Walrus", you have to respect the fact that he knew his status and actually used it as a platform, instead of being afraid to grow and mature and say something because you're afraid of losing your audience, like a lot of artists do.

I like McCartney too, but I think the vast difference between McCartney and Lennon is that McCartney loved making music for the masses (nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't have the rawness of Lennon's music), Lennon preferred making music that came right from the heart. This is a reason why it's been nearly thirty years since his murder but yet people who were born years after the fact have flocked to his music.


This is a great post, John. I think you said pretty much the same things I would have said.

You can say what you want about Ike Turner and/or John Lennon, but I don't think anybody would deny their talent and how they changed rock music.
Good point. Both imperfect men, but made their marks on the music world, and their marks on their wivess faces while they were at it.
However, how the hell did Paris, Lindsay and Britney ever get into this conversation??:confused: :confused: Combined, they don't have one zillionth the talent that either Lennon or Turner had individually.;)
Brian was pointing out the double-standard of those who tear these gals to shreds for practically nothing, yet make endless excuses for Lennon, who was an absentee father, and who didn't even include his son Julian in his will. Nobody was comparing their talents.

you cannot even begin to compare the music Paris, Britney and Lindsay make to Lennon's music (Turner was a great musician, I give you that). Britney on her best day (and I'll give her a few catchy songs) is hardly as good as "Some Time In New York City", which is generally considered Lennon's worst album.
Once again, and all together now, nobody was comparing their talents. You know the context in why they were mentioned in this thread. That's your opinion on Britney's singing. Not everyone shares it. That gal had millions of fans. I'm still hoping she can get herself together.
Britney, Paris and Lindsay all do wild trainwrecky things so they can stay on the front page of TMZ, they are using their celebrity to further themselves. Lennon used his celebrity to speak up for causes he believed in and purposely tried to distance himself from the moptop lad that rose to fame in 63-64. Have you ever seen Britney or Paris get behind a cause they believe in and use their fame and status to get the message out? The differences between what Lennon did and what those girls are doing today are completely different.
Paris isn't bothering anybody, and despite what anyone says, she's a successful businesswoman, who has had varying degrees of success in modeling, singing, a reality show, a best-selling book, a perfume line and other ventures. She's young, rich and beautiful and got caught up in the fast-lane, although it looks like she's settling down - not that she has to answer to anyone but herself.

As for Britney and Lindsay, only a heartless fool would slam young women who are in serious trouble. They'll be the first one's posting the crying smilies if one of them dies. The decent thing is to wish them well and put a lid on it. Don't blame TMZ on them. They're the ones that are hounded day and night. What did Lennon do, sing songs of love and peace. Imagine no possessions. Looks like that's all he did was imagine it, considering where he lived and the money he had.

I agree with everything. Lennon isn't beloved because he's a saint, he is beloved because he was a breath of fresh air. He used his status to speak up for what he believed in, made the music he wanted to make, and was always himself, never pretending to be what others would've wanted. Hell, all you need to do is listen to the lyrics of "God". People kept expecting "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and he gave them "I Am The Walrus", you have to respect the fact that he knew his status and actually used it as a platform, instead of being afraid to grow and mature and say something because you're afraid of losing your audience, like a lot of artists do.

I like McCartney too, but I think the vast difference between McCartney and Lennon is that McCartney loved making music for the masses (nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't have the rawness of Lennon's music), Lennon preferred making music that came right from the heart. This is a reason why it's been nearly thirty years since his murder but yet people who were born years after the fact have flocked to his music.
Why do you always pretend to know what people were or are thinking? Everyone was expecting, I Want To Hold You Hand? I doubt it. The Beatles shed that image when they were together. People flock plenty to McCartney's music. I don't know much about post-Beatles, but I'm guessing Paul had more success post-Beatles than John did, more hits anyway. I know he was a better person that John could ever IMAGINE to be. A better husband and father, that's for damn sure. All the essays on his music will never change that fact.

Why do you always pretend to know what people were or are thinking? Everyone was expecting, I Want To Hold You Hand? I doubt it. The Beatles shed that image when they were together. People flock plenty to McCartney's music. I don't know much about post-Beatles, but I'm guessing Paul had more success post-Beatles than John did, more hits anyway. I know he was a better person that John could ever IMAGINE to be. A better husband and father, that's for damn sure. All the essays on his music will never change that fact.

Paul did have more hits during the 1970's than John. As far as hit singles are concerned, I think Paul was second only to Elton John in regards to how many hit singles he stacked up during the 70's. However, I think much of this has to do with the fact that Paul's music was more commerical and appealed to a larger audiance thn John's.

Why do you always pretend to know what people were or are thinking? Everyone was expecting, I Want To Hold You Hand? I doubt it. The Beatles shed that image when they were together. People flock plenty to McCartney's music. I don't know much about post-Beatles, but I'm guessing Paul had more success post-Beatles than John did, more hits anyway. I know he was a better person that John could ever IMAGINE to be. A better husband and father, that's for damn sure. All the essays on his music will never change that fact.
I am sorry I think Lennon had more talent than that party-savvy media whore Paris and the ticking time-bomb that goes by the name Britney (you want to talk about a terrible parent and spouse, let's start with your precious Britney!!!! Lennon was ideal compared to her).

It's a well known and documented fact that Paul was more into writing catchy pop songs that the audience would love whereas Lennon was more introspective. It's only been well documented in practically every documentary contrasting the difference between John and Paul musically and they both accepted it. Like I've said, there is nothing wrong with the road Paul took, but it's an explanation for why people have so much more passion for John's work than Paul's.

I am sorry that I believe that Lennon's life and career had more to offer than the nothingness that Paris Hilton or the ilk. You are aware that they actually promoted her death scene in House Of Wax to get people to see it, knowing how disliked she is, right?

Janice, do you think John Lennon redeemed himself some by admitting toward the end of his life how he treated Cynthia and Julian?
I don't think admitting something that everyone already knows is exactly redeeming yourself. If John left Julian an inheritance, that would be a step in redeeming himself. He didn't leave his son a dime. I can't get past that.

John was 17, almost an adult, when his father died. He had grown up without his father. John didn't provide that well for Cynthia and Julian either, while he was growing up. They didn't live in poverty, but this was John Lennon's son here. There's no unringing that bell. What's done is done. The important thing is that John made great music. :crazy:

I am glad that Julian had a wonderful stepfather, whom he considered his father. Julian is cool. John was the loser in this, in more ways that one.

A couple of articles from 1998, in Julian's own words.

http://www.julianlennon.com/Fire/media/sundaytimes_may98.html


http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/1998/07/cov_08feature.html

snip> Julian dedicated "Photograph Smile" to the late Roberto Bassanini, who was his stepfather for several years in the early '70s. "He played a very, very serious part in my life," Julian explains. "He was the guy that picked me up from school, he was the guy that took me to the park, he was the guy that took me on holidays. So, for me, this was my father. That's how it felt."

Paul did have more hits during the 1970's than John. As far as hit singles are concerned, I think Paul was second only to Elton John in regards to how many hit singles he stacked up during the 70's. However, I think much of this has to do with the fact that Paul's music was more commerical and appealed to a larger audiance thn John's.
that is correct, AND HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN COUNTLESS DOCUMENTARIES AND PAUL HIMSELF WILL ADMIT HE WAS MORE OF AN ENTERTAINER WHILE JOHN WAS MORE OF AN INTROSPECTIVE SONGWRITER. It has nothing to do with analyzing what you think is there, it's stating the obvious that has been beaten to death in every documentary you've seen about either Paul or John

The important thing is that John made great music. :crazy:
[/I]


That's true. The music is what counts most.

that is correct, AND HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN COUNTLESS DOCUMENTARIES AND PAUL HIMSELF WILL ADMIT HE WAS MORE OF AN ENTERTAINER WHILE JOHN WAS MORE OF AN INTROSPECTIVE SONGWRITER. It has nothing to do with analyzing what you think is there, it's stating the obvious that has been beaten to death in every documentary you've seen about either Paul or John

Very true.

Very true.
thank you. When even Paul says on camera in retrospect that John never wanted a song like "Yesterday" because it wasn't what he was about, I don't think it's analyzing or reading into things that aren't there, it's just repeating what has been stated in countless documentaries about The Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney. John is John and Paul is Paul, they're great on their own and together they were magic.

I am sorry I think Lennon had more talent than that party-savvy media whore Paris and the ticking time-bomb that goes by the name Britney (you want to talk about a terrible parent and spouse, let's start with your precious Britney!!!! Lennon was ideal compared to her).
Are you pretending that you think anybody here is comparing Lennon and those gal's talent? I'm looking for the LOL, but you either really think that, or you're using it as an excuse to make another speech about John's talent. Nobody compared their talents. What will it take, bigger font, extra bold? Your red herring argument stinks.

As for Britney, I never said she was a great parent. She has a substance abuse problem. What was John's excuse? He was busy saving the world with his songs? :lol: He should have written, The Cat's In The Cradle.

It's a well known and documented fact that Paul was more into writing catchy pop songs that the audience would love whereas Lennon was more introspective. It's only been well documented in practically every documentary contrasting the difference between John and Paul musically and they both accepted it. Like I've said, there is nothing wrong with the road Paul took, but it's an explanation for why people have so much more passion for John's work than Paul's.
Not a fan. Sorry.
I am sorry that I believe that Lennon's life and career had more to offer than the nothingness that Paris Hilton or the ilk. You are aware that they actually promoted her death scene in House Of Wax to get people to see it, knowing how disliked she is, right?
I actually read that from one of your posts, when you stated how Paris was cool because she didn't take herself seriously, and did that House of Wax thing, sort of tongue-in-cheek. Paris has her fans. Loads of them. She doesn't make millions every year on the haters. She makes it on her fans. I don't respect Lennon. Paris is trying. At least she's not breaking a young child's heart.

That's true. The music is what counts most.
More important than your own child?

More important than your own child?

No, of course not. However, I look up to John for his music not his skills as a parent.

I think if you do enough analysis of "rock legends", you'll see the saints are few and far between. Even if you looked deep enough, there's probably a really bad skeleton in Bono's closet that he's trying to overcompensate with with his humanitarianism and the sort.
My money's on Bono being a wonderful person with a great heart. He's a dedicated family man and humanitarian. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.

No, of course not. However, I look up to John for his music not his skills as a parent.
I'm glad to hear that, as he's no role model of parenting.

I'm glad to hear that, as he's no role model of parenting.


I've never been interested in people's private lives. I try to judge an artist by their work. And to me no one was a more brilliant songwriter than John Lennon.

My money's on Bono being a wonderful person with a great heart. He's a dedicated family man and humanitarian. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.
you're probably right, but it does seem like with most of the so-called legends of music, there are things in their past that they might not be proud of. Probably a good chunk of the "Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame" establishment has something in their past that isn't to be reverred (drug use, adultery, etc...). Just look at the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger was a sexholic who cheated on his many wives and Keith Richards is one of the most notorious junkies in music history, but they were great musically.

To get back to the original mission of the thread, Lennon eventually admitted his wrongdoing and in his latter years did start establishing more of a relationship with Julian, whereas Ike Turner never once ever tried to apologize to Tina or the many children he left behind that witnessed the abuse. And to me, that is the difference between John and Ike.

No more arguing on this topic from me as far as I'm concerned since it's a no-win argument on either side, I think all points have been valid, but I do think the redemption factor was more in John's favor since he at least tried when Julian got older, whereas Ike was unrepentant to his dying day. And to me, that is why I think John was more redeeming than Ike.

If there was a thread on John Lennon abt how bad a father he was etc. I would post my two cents on it and agreeing with that fact.

On this thread, you called Cynthia and Julian a liar. I don't get all this talk from people of, John at least admitted his mistakes, so he was a good guy. That's total bull. He disinherited Julian. He wasn't even mentioned in his John's will. Way to make amends. Treated the poor kid terrible until his dying day. Makes me wonder about that Instant Karma thing.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=151146&page=2

I mentioned other celebrities because you and others go wild over nothing. J-lo isn't snubbing her offspring, and Paris parties. Here you have a guy who admittedly hit woman, ignored his son for most of his life, then disinherited him, and all I'm reading are these convoluted excuses, or about great his music is. Screw his music! As a father, he was a complete and total loser.

Interesting thing I've noticed about John Lennon, in regard to his being an absentee father to his first wife and son, he himself grew up without his mother, who died when he was young. His father wasn't in the picture, either. He was basically raised by his Aunt Mimi. So I'm thinking because his parents were "absent", this may have planted the seeds towards his own parental absenteeism.

Interesting thing I've noticed about John Lennon, in regard to his being an absentee father to his first wife and son, he himself grew up without his mother, who died when he was young. His father wasn't in the picture, either. He was basically raised by his Aunt Mimi. So I'm thinking because his parents were "absent", this may have planted the seeds towards his own parental absenteeism.
I made that observation a few pages back, on this thread. I though it would work the other way. John knew the pain of rejection, and would never subject his own child to that. That's in an ideal world though. It appears to have had the opposite effect. I've always suspected this was Yoko's doing. Some stepmothers can be very cruel and unwelcoming to their stepkids. Some can make their husband's lives a living hell, so some men just go along with it. Even if this was the case, it was John's responsibility for maintaining and nurturing a relationship with Julian.

Personally, I have more post-Beatles McCartney albums than I do Lennon (and I DO have both), however, I guess I just overall enjoy McCartney's music more - whether it be more "pop" or not. Believe me, he still had deeper meanings to his songs than meet the eye.

That said, yes Lennon certainly sucked as a husband to Cynthia and father to Julian. He was good to Sean, but some of it may have been driven by some guilt about how bad he was to Julian (STILL doesn't explain why Julian didn't get a dime and little or no child support growing up). You have to remember that John was worth a FORTUNE. He could have flown himself or Julian in at the bat of an eye (even Ozzy O and his family would fly back and forth from LA even to England like it was nothing). John was even closer in NY. He also wasn't hot sh*t as a husband to Yoko as it turns out. To me, I got to give her kudos for preserving his image and name as well as she has all these years. What about the switch-hitter she had to bring in to "save" their marriage. Then John takes up with this young one at LOT closer than she had thought he would. It got on an emotional level and it hurt her to the core. If anything, SHE was the one who gave him everything he wanted. Yes, she could have been in it for the money but I don't think so. Even if she was, she would have stood to gain a fortune if she divorced him then and she never did.
Both John and Ike may have been very talented men, but they both absolutely sucked in their personal and private lives. John gains points for preaching peace and tolerance though and if he used drugs, at least he was "functioning". I don't think Ike had functioned for years (course he had the advantage of living a lot longer too). Anyway, that's moi 2 cents wurt.

How did a thread about Ike Turner ever turn into a let's bash John Lennon thread? :(

Personally, I have more post-Beatles McCartney albums than I do Lennon (and I DO have both), however, I guess I just overall enjoy McCartney's music more - whether it be more "pop" or not. Believe me, he still had deeper meanings to his songs than meet the eye.

That said, yes Lennon certainly sucked as a husband to Cynthia and father to Julian. He was good to Sean, but some of it may have been driven by some guilt about how bad he was to Julian (STILL doesn't explain why Julian didn't get a dime and little or no child support growing up). You have to remember that John was worth a FORTUNE. He could have flown himself or Julian in at the bat of an eye (even Ozzy O and his family would fly back and forth from LA even to England like it was nothing). John was even closer in NY. He also wasn't hot sh*t as a husband to Yoko as it turns out. To me, I got to give her kudos for preserving his image and name as well as she has all these years. What about the switch-hitter she had to bring in to "save" their marriage. Then John takes up with this young one at LOT closer than she had thought he would. It got on an emotional level and it hurt her to the core. If anything, SHE was the one who gave him everything he wanted. Yes, she could have been in it for the money but I don't think so. Even if she was, she would have stood to gain a fortune if she divorced him then and she never did.
Both John and Ike may have been very talented men, but they both absolutely sucked in their personal and private lives. John gains points for preaching peace and tolerance though and if he used drugs, at least he was "functioning". I don't think Ike had functioned for years (course he had the advantage of living a lot longer too). Anyway, that's moi 2 cents wurt.

well, I'm done arguing about Lennon's merits as a husband and father. But I don't understand why people think if you're a Lennon fan, you automatically must be a McCartney "hater". To me, pop is not a bad thing. You're talking to someone who'd rather listen to Cher's "All I Really Want To Do" and Olivia Newton-John's "If Not For You" than the original Bob Dylan versions! Yes, I do prefer Lennon, but don't for a second think I don't like McCartney too, if you read my fave albums of 2007 list, his album was in my top 10. You can respect both Lennon and McCartney's songwriting differences, it was the difference between them which was why they were so great together IMO. They complemented each other so much and they both brought so much to the table, it's why both of them had such prosperous careers on their own. It was a true 50/50 partnership.

However, I have to admit it's refreshing to see a Beatles fan who doesn't want to blame it all on Yoko. I've seen people who hate her so much they'd try to find a way to tie her into 9/11, Vietnam, Watergate, Hiroshima and TRL. I mean, she was in Japan in 1945 when Hiroshima happened and lived in New York by 9/11, coincidence? :lol:

well, I'm done arguing about Lennon's merits as a husband and father.
That's good, considering he had no merits as a father with Julian.
But I don't understand why people think if you're a Lennon fan, you automatically must be a McCartney "hater".
Who stated that, here, in this debate? All those other people from all those other message boards?

However, I have to admit it's refreshing to see a Beatles fan who doesn't want to blame it all on Yoko. I've seen people who hate her so much they'd try to find a way to tie her into 9/11, Vietnam, Watergate, Hiroshima and TRL. I mean, she was in Japan in 1945 when Hiroshima happened and lived in New York by 9/11, coincidence? :lol:
Who's blaming Yoko, again, on this thread? I think Yoko had a role in shutting Julian out, and she wouldn't be the first stepmother to do such a thing. Still, he was John's son, and he's to blame. In Cynthia's book, she tells how John and Julian were seeing more of each other during John and Yoko's breakup, but as soon as John and Yoko reconciled, Julian got shoved out of John's life again. Coincidence? :lol:

From Cynthia's book.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,170851,00.html

Later, when she was negotiating the divorce settlement in 1968, Lennon — who had become wildly rich — encouraged her to take the 100,000 British pounds he offered.

"That's all you're worth," he allegedly told her.

Within a few months, John and Yoko were married. Shortly thereafter, Lennon stopped seeing Julian, who was then about 5. He didn't see him again for three years.

Of course, that's the part of "John" that is the most interesting. As Cynthia points out, the rock star was then releasing "Imagine," a song that would become an international peace anthem, but had just cut off contact with his only child.

"There was no word from him between 1971 and 1974," Cynthia wrote.

Father and son were briefly reunited during Pang's time with Lennon, known as the "lost weekend."

But when Lennon returned to Ono in late 1974, Cynthia and Julian were once again cut out of the star's life.

"Julian would call and Yoko or one of her people would say John was sleeping," Cynthia wrote.

After Lennon was murdered in 1980, it would take 16 years, Cynthia wrote, for Julian to get any money from his father's estate, thanks to Ono's lack of cooperation. By that time, Julian had had a couple of hit records of his own and had made his own money.

Who stated that, here, in this debate? All those other people from all those other message boards?

well, TripperFan sounded a little defensive like she might've thought I was bashing McCartney because I said he's more pop-oriented than Lennon. So I wanted to make it clear that I love pop music and think Paul is one of the best songwriters in pop history, so because he's more pop than Lennon doesn't mean he's inferior to John in any way.

Who's blaming Yoko, again, on this thread?

Nobody, but.... it was refreshing to see a huge Beatles fan take up for Yoko for once. Go to YouTube and type in any of her music videos or interviews or check out of her album reviews on Amazon and the comments are filled with hatred, bashing and the sort because they still love to pin the breakup of The Beatles on her instead of just accepting that John and Paul were drifting in different directions. I have never seen a person in history get bashed as much as Yoko. Even tho you can say someone like Britney is hated by a lot of people, she has enough fans to balance it out. So for someone who is as big a Beatles fan as her to say she doesn't blame the Holocaust on Yoko is refreshing for a change.

by the way, I can't believe you're still pissed off at me over this thread! :rolleyes:

well, TripperFan sounded a little defensive like she might've thought I was bashing McCartney because I said he's more pop-oriented than Lennon. So I wanted to make it clear that I love pop music and think Paul is one of the best songwriters in pop history, so because he's more pop than Lennon doesn't mean he's inferior to John in any way.



Nobody, but.... it was refreshing to see a huge Beatles fan take up for Yoko for once. Go to YouTube and type in any of her music videos or interviews or check out of her album reviews on Amazon and the comments are filled with hatred, bashing and the sort because they still love to pin the breakup of The Beatles on her instead of just accepting that John and Paul were drifting in different directions. I have never seen a person in history get bashed as much as Yoko. Even tho you can say someone like Britney is hated by a lot of people, she has enough fans to balance it out. So for someone who is as big a Beatles fan as her to say she doesn't blame the Holocaust on Yoko is refreshing for a change.


No - I didn't mean to sound defensive at all! If anything, I wondered why you got comparing the two guys myself. I would never have even brought Paul up otherwise. :lol:

And I did understand what you meant about Yoko - that not necessarily was anyone bashing her here, just in general over the years.
Janice does have a point about Julian being shoved aside, and I'm sure Yoko had much influence and manipulated a lot herself, but she did probably put up with quite a bit of crap herself. (NOT to take anything away from Cynthia either). Just comparing John and Ike in their marriages I suppose here.

But yeah, we are kinda drifting off the topic of Ike being a real pr**k. ;)

well, TripperFan sounded a little defensive like she might've thought I was bashing McCartney because I said he's more pop-oriented than Lennon. So I wanted to make it clear that I love pop music and think Paul is one of the best songwriters in pop history, so because he's more pop than Lennon doesn't mean he's inferior to John in any way.



Nobody, but.... it was refreshing to see a huge Beatles fan take up for Yoko for once. Go to YouTube and type in any of her music videos or interviews or check out of her album reviews on Amazon and the comments are filled with hatred, bashing and the sort because they still love to pin the breakup of The Beatles on her instead of just accepting that John and Paul were drifting in different directions. I have never seen a person in history get bashed as much as Yoko. Even tho you can say someone like Britney is hated by a lot of people, she has enough fans to balance it out. So for someone who is as big a Beatles fan as her to say she doesn't blame the Holocaust on Yoko is refreshing for a change.

by the way, I can't believe you're still pissed off at me!
I'm not pissed at you, not one bit. I just debate, that's all. Try not to take things personally. I think at times, you read things into posts that are not there. I look back at a thread, and try to find where something you claim was even implied, and see nothing, so I ask you. Regarding Yoko, she gets a lot of blame for the Beatle's breakup. How much of that is true, I don't know, as I've never been a big Beatle's fan. I don't care either.

I have noticed one thing with this thread. Members who bash, bash, and bash, some of it seems for sport or a hobby, they lose it when someone bashes Lennon or one of their sacred cows. Is it bashing when someone is simply offering their opinion, with backup, that John was a terrible father to Julian? Disinheriting your son is being a terrible father, even in death. Yet, people will post for 10, 20 pages, ragging on Paris because she went to a party. On this thread, a member has begged for it to end, a few have stormed off, others are clearly upset...yet those same members can't get through three posts on this site without bashing someone else. They say a person sucks in thread titles. There's clearly a double-standard going on. John was "only human", we're told over and over, yet the troubled girls are whores, or it's J-Ho. What happened to "only human" there?

I've always held this opinion of Lennon, but always expressed it respectfully on this site. No more. People want to bash, they're going to have to learn to live with it. Maybe I'll write a song about what a rotten father Lennon was, to the tune of, 'Imagine.' That would be funny. Hey, nobody's laughing. :lol:

I'm not pissed at you, not one bit. I just debate, that's all. Try not to take things personally. I think at times, you read things into posts that are not there. I look back at a thread, and try to find where something you claim was even implied, and see nothing, so I ask you. Regarding Yoko, she gets a lot of blame for the Beatle's breakup. How much of that is true, I don't know, as I've never been a big Beatle's fan. I don't care either.

I have noticed one thing with this thread. Members who bash, bash, and bash, some of it seems for sport or a hobby, they lose it when someone bashes Lennon or one of their sacred cows. Is it bashing when someone is simply offering their opinion, with backup, that John was a terrible father to Julian? Disinheriting your son is being a terrible father, even in death. Yet, people will post for 10, 20 pages, ragging on Paris because she went to a party. On this thread, a member has begged for it to end, a few have stormed off, others are clearly upset...yet those same members can't get through three posts on this site without bashing someone else. They say a person sucks in thread titles. There's clearly a double-standard going on. John was "only human", we're told over and over, yet the troubled girls are whores, or it's J-Ho. What happened to "only human" there?

I've always held this opinion of Lennon, but always expressed it respectfully on this site. No more. People want to bash, they're going to have to learn to live with it. Maybe I'll write a song about what a rotten father Lennon was, to the tune of, 'Imagine.' That would be funny. Hey, nobody's laughing. :lol:

Janice, this is simply my opinion, but I think there is a big difference between John and Paris. John left us with some really great music and a wonderful legacy, where as Paris really hasn't given anyone anything. She is famous for being famous. John earned his fame. Paris has not.

Janice, this is simply my opinion, but I think there is a big difference between John and Paris. John left us with some really great music and a wonderful legacy, where as Paris really hasn't given anyone anything. She is famous for being famous. John earned his fame. Paris has not.
I wasn't talking about Paris, per se, but since you brought her up, she didn't dump her own flesh and blood. I know, you never comment on personal lives. I could have sworn I saw you in those bash threads, but I guess not. Once again, Paris had a best-selling book, a modeling career, did some singing and acting, a perfume line, and a hit reality show. She's done plenty. She didn't have to do anything.

I wasn't talking about Paris, per se, but since you brought her up, she didn't dump her own kid. I know, you never comment on personal lives. I could have sworn I saw you in those bash threads, but I guess not. Once again, Paris had a best-selling book, a modeling career, did some singing and acting, a perfume line, and a hit reality show. She's done plenty.


You're right. I did post once or twice in one of those Paris bash threads. I should not have. What I meant though about not commenting on personal lives is that I try to judge an artist on their art and not what they do in their personal lives.

You're right. I did post once or twice in one of those Paris bash threads. I should not have.
Mike, listen, please, you're missing my point, which is this: If a celebrity can be bashed for something, a DUI, being Britney and her antics, a lousy movie or album, getting pregnant at 16, etc, it's only natural that members are going to have opinions. This is Chit Chat, and it's an entertainment site. However, it works both ways. Nobody is off limits, not even John Lennon. If he was only human, then so is everybody else. That's my only point. :)

Mike, listen, please, you're missing my point, which is this: If a celebrity can be bashed for something, a DUI, being Britney and her antics, getting pregnant at 16, etc, it's only natural that members are going to have opinions. This is Chit Chat, and an entertainment site. However, it works both ways. Nobody is off limits, not even John Lennon. If he was only human, then so is everybody else.


That is a good point, Janice. :)

Getting back on track: cocaine is also what killed The Who bassist John Entwhistle and Bobby Hatfield, who was half of the Righteous Brothers.

:crazy:

:crazy:
:crazy: :happyface :D :wave:

Getting back on track: cocaine is also what killed The Who bassist John Entwhistle and Bobby Hatfield, who was half of the Righteous Brothers.It also killed Kevin Dubrow of Quiet Riot last fall.

Cocaine: NOT a safe drug.

It also killed Kevin Dubrow of Quiet Riot last fall.

Cocaine: NOT a safe drug.

You know, I was going to write back and say he just died a couple of weeks ago, but you are right. He died in November, which is in the fall. I guess maybe it was the "revelation" recently that he died of a cocaine overdose that made me think it was within the last two weeks.

Idiot.

Getting back on track: cocaine is also what killed The Who bassist John Entwhistle and Bobby Hatfield, who was half of the Righteous Brothers.
Bobby Hatfield died from using cocaine?? I never knew that. Sad...

other celebrities whose personal lives have destroyed their status to a lot of people....

Joan Crawford
Woody Allen
Michael Jackson
OJ Simpson

are four that come to mind that are hated for things they may or may not have done in their personal lives (okay, we know Woody slept with his underage stepdaughter, but Joan, MJ and OJ are all accusations) and it's destroyed their reputations, much like Ike.

^ Robert Blake too, although his career was history anyway. Woody Allen took a huge hit to his reputation, but he survived, for the most part. Lots of actors would still pay to be in his movies. He pays practically nothing anyway.

I'm not defending Woody. What he did to Mia was a disgrace, but it's a misconception to some people had that he was Soon-Yi's stepfather. Woody and Mia had the most bizarre relationship ever. They never lived together, but on opposite sides of Central Park. She had six children from her marriage to Andre Previn, three bio and three adopted. Soon-Yi was one, and Andre is very much a great father to those children he had with Mia. Mia and Woody adopted and had a few kids, yet as I stated, he never lived with her. He couldn't take all the kids, and the madness at her place. He's a weirdo. When the story broke, he said he barely knew Mia's kids.

Of course, he made up for that when he hooked up with Soon-Yi. They've been married now for about a dozen years and have a couple of kids. His betrayal of Mia is unforgiveable. What I'm saying is that this wasn't a case of incest. Woody was in no shape or form, her stepfather. Last I heard, Mia and her Soon-Yi never spoke again. If that's changed, I'd love to know. Terrible story. I think I would have killed him, and I'm not kidding. I think Mia Farrow is an Angel. She has adopted 10 children and she's a single mother.

You know, I was going to write back and say he just died a couple of weeks ago, but you are right. He died in November, which is in the fall. I guess maybe it was the "revelation" recently that he died of a cocaine overdose that made me think it was within the last two weeks.

Idiot.That's true, because for a while, no one in the press was saying what he exactly died from. It was around Thanksgiving, but the time they confirmed the cause of death made it seem sooner. In fact, it was determined that he died nearly a week before they found him, several days to a week. Same as Layne Staley.

Janice, I think Angelina Jolie's going to be another Mia Farrow - they both obviously have a huge heart for kids. I think Angelina is far from over when it comes to having kids. I can easily see her adopting as many as Mia.

Janice, I think Angelina Jolie's going to be another Mia Farrow - they both obviously have a huge heart for kids. I think Angelina is far from over when it comes to having kids. I can easily see her adopting as many as Mia.
I think so too. I think Angie will keep going, with or without Brad. There's a rumor that she's pregnant with twins, but who knows. Mia actually adopted 11 kids and had 4 on her own. Amazing, 15 kids. She lost a 21 year old daughter a couple of years ago.

^ Robert Blake too, although his career was history anyway. Woody Allen took a huge hit to his reputation, but he survived, for the most part. Lots of actors would still pay to be in his movies. He pays practically nothing anyway.

I'm not defending Woody. What he did to Mia was a disgrace, but it's a misconception to some people had that he was Soon-Yi's stepfather. Woody and Mia had the most bizarre relationship ever. They never lived together, but on opposite sides of Central Park. She had six children from her marriage to Andre Previn, three bio and three adopted. Soon-Yi was one, and Andre is very much a great father to those children he had with Mia. Mia and Woody adopted and had a few kids, yet as I stated, he never lived with her. He couldn't take all the kids, and the madness at her place. He's a weirdo. When the story broke, he said he barely knew Mia's kids.

Of course, he made up for that when he hooked up with Soon-Yi. They've been married now for about a dozen years and have a couple of kids. His betrayal of Mia is unforgiveable. What I'm saying is that this wasn't a case of incest. Woody was in no shape or form, her stepfather. Last I heard, Mia and her Soon-Yi never spoke again. If that's changed, I'd love to know. Terrible story. I think I would have killed him, and I'm not kidding. I think Mia Farrow is an Angel. She has adopted 10 children and she's a single mother.
thanks for clarifying it. It does make it far less creepy when you realize Woody wasn't exactly changing Soon-Yi's diapers the way the media spun it into being.